View full case

PEOPLE v. ISABELO PUNO Y GUEVARRA

FACTS:

The accused-appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom, but they argued that they should be charged with simple robbery instead. The victim, Maria Socorro Sarmiento, was taken by the accused-appellants while she was in the car with them. They demanded money from her and she gave them P7,000. They then demanded an additional P100,000, agreeing to let her go if she paid that amount at her gas station in Makati. During this time, the victim prayed and held onto her rosary. While they were driving, the victim managed to jump out of the car and seek help. The accused-appellants were later apprehended, with one of them trying to encash one of the victim's checks at a bank in Makati.

Both the prosecution and defense agree on the narrative of the complainant, except for a minor discrepancy regarding her release. Appellant Puno claimed that he needed the money for his ulcer medication. The court ruled that the crime cannot be considered as kidnapping for ransom, as there is no other motive or intent shown by the accused-appellants except for extorting money. Appellant Puno admitted that he committed the acts because he needed money. The court also emphasizes that indubitable proof of intent to deprive the victim of her liberty is necessary for the crime of kidnapping to be established. In this case, there was no intention to kidnap or deprive the complainant of her personal liberty, as testified by appellant Puno. The court concludes that the crime committed by the accused-appellants cannot be considered as kidnapping for ransom, based on the facts presented.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the acts committed by the appellants constitute highway robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532.

  2. Whether the amounts obtained from the complainant should be considered as ransom.

  3. Whether the crime committed by the appellants falls under the purview of Presidential Decree No. 532.

  4. Whether the location of the offense on a highway is a determining factor in the application of Presidential Decree No. 532.

  5. Whether the offense committed by appellants is a case of highway robbery/brigandage or simple robbery.

  6. Whether appellants can be convicted of simple robbery even if they were charged with kidnapping for ransom.

RULING:

  1. The acts committed by the appellants do not constitute highway robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532. While the crime committed is robbery as defined in Article 293 of the Code, it does not fall under the category of highway robbery contemplated in and punished by Presidential Decree No. 532. The court rejects the theory of the trial court that the robbery constitutes highway robbery as it was not shown that the appellants formed a band for the purpose of committing indiscriminate highway robbery.

  2. The amounts obtained from the complainant should not be considered as ransom. The amounts were merely involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion of a robbery, and cannot be equated with or be considered in the concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping. The amounts were summarily taken from the complainant and do not qualify as ransom. Therefore, the crime committed is robbery and not kidnapping.

  3. The crime committed by the appellants does not fall under the purview of Presidential Decree No. 532. The essence of brigandage under the decree remains the same as under the Revised Penal Code, wherein the unlawful acts are directed against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway.

  4. The location of the offense on a highway is not a determining factor in the application of Presidential Decree No. 532. To adopt a literal interpretation that any unlawful taking of property committed on highways would be covered by the decree would lead to absurd and conflicting effects on substantive criminal law.

  5. The offense committed by appellants is simple robbery and not highway robbery/brigandage. The single act of robbery committed inside a car on a highway does not fall within the definition of highway robbery/brigandage provided in the law.

  6. Appellants can be convicted of simple robbery even if they were charged with kidnapping for ransom because the elements of unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of personal property through intimidation of the owner or possessor are necessarily included in the charge of kidnapping for ransom.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Ransom is the money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons. It is a payment that releases from captivity.

  • The crime of robbery, as defined in Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code, involves the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things.

  • Highway robbery, as defined in Presidential Decree No. 532, refers to the act of robbery committed on any Philippine highway, road, street, or alley, by any person, who, with intent to gain, shall take any property from another by means of violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things. It contemplates the formation of a band for the purpose of committing indiscriminate highway robbery.

  • The rule on contemporaneous construction - contemporaneous exposition or construction is the best and strongest in the law.

  • The spirit or intent of the law should not be subordinated to the letter thereof.

  • Criminal justice inclines in favor of the milder form of liability in case of doubt.

  • Absurdities and conflicts should be avoided in the interpretation of laws.

  • The location of the offense on a highway is not a determinative factor in the application of a law specific to highway robberies.

  • The offense of simple robbery is defined in Article 293 and punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • A charge of kidnapping for ransom necessarily includes the elements of robbery through intimidation of persons.